A FEMALE READER writes:

I am no early education scholar, and I do not hold an advanced degree in child psychology, but I have taken care of children (my own and those of other people) for twenty years. Somehow, I feel at least moderately qualified to add to your recent posts about maternal employment and its effects on children. 

There is a tremendous difference in personality and emotional temperament between young children whose mothers are home, and young children whose mothers are working even part time outside of their homes. No matter how many years the mother has been getting up in the morning and leaving her children in the care of another to go to work, the children persistently complain, whine and cry as she leaves, and sometimes for quite awhile afterward. We child caregivers tend to minimize this separation “anxiety” when sharing with the mothers, if we share at all – they somehow seem to refrain from asking about these sorts of things when they come home from work. 

The children whine and complain, all without fail, during the day about how they wish “Mommy would not work so much.” This has been the case with any child over three years old whom I have cared for, as they are well able to vocalize these feelings. They want their mother at home. Desperately. One child, a four year old, looked at me and said, “I like my life the way it is (referring to her home, her play set, her toys and other material belongings), but I wish Mommy would not work and would be here all the time with me and Sister.” In this child’s young mind, she had connected the work of her mother with material abundance. I wonder how she will view herself and her value later on in life as a result? 

Without fail, the children I have cared for have been far more physically aggressive (and at younger ages) when their mothers are working than when I am having a play-date with another mother who is home with her children full-time. The aggressive children are both male and female, and although most of their parents have been subscribers to “positive discipline,” which uses no spanking or other physical discipline, these children resort to hitting, biting, scratching with fingernails and extremely aggressive temper-tantrums far more often than the typical toddler I have raised or been around. They are emotionally very volatile when their mothers leave, as well as when their mothers return from work. Many of the children I have cared for have had no father in their lives. However, for the nine children who have been in my care at least 30 hours per week, WITH active fathers in their lives, in seven of the children these behaviors are still seen. In fact, when Father arrives home from work earlier than Mother, the children didn’t even look up to greet him if they were older than one year. I still do not understand this phenomenon. 

In any event, here are these women leaving their children and worried about “earning a living” so that their children have such an abundance of material things that they are actually often bored in their own playrooms, yet we have concrete evidence that leaving them has the same effect as poverty! Amazing! 

I should add that I have never worked in a day care center or any institutionalized setting with children (even a church nursery!) My care has always been in-home; either my home or the children’s own home. One of these “jobs” I held was as a live-in Nanny (a term I personally despise), and this was the most interesting, because the mother left the children for twelve hours per day not to earn money, but to evangelize in Christian “ministry.” The children reacted in the same way as those of a career mother. 

Certainly I am not demonizing mothers who choose to work full-time or part-time. These women are not bad people. They love their children, as do those women who have, either through poor decisions or unexpected poor circumstances, found themselves as single mothers or widows and MUST work. However, I find it absurd that women and men continue to deceive themselves into believing that there is no cost to the children associated with choosing even a part-time career. These children act differently. They are usually slightly sleep-deprived from trying to maximize time with Mom. They have a tremendously difficult time entertaining themselves and ask to be constantly “entertained” by their caregiver. As the hours in the week progress, they deteriorate in the ability to emotionally handle Mom’s absence. They mature less quickly emotionally. Often they are rebellious; I believe they have rebelled against what is happening to them and they don’t even know why they are acting out rebelliously! I have never been around to see what happens in adolescence, but I imagine it is startling. 

I have attempted to describe the differences to the best of my ability. There is a tremendous, sacrificial cost associated with raising your children part-time. It is revolting and disturbing to me that the majority of women have bought into the lie that their working is “helping” their children – by “socializing” them in day care, or some other such nonsense. The only socialization they need early in life is with their mother and their father. “Early childhood educators” do not good parents make. It is bogus to believe that in-home care from a “stranger” makes much better care than center or institutionalized care: the children are still without Mom. Yes, it is more comfortable for them (and more expensive for Mom), and more comfortable for the caregiver, but I would not say it is better (and apparently neither does the research.) 

It should be noted that my own two children (and one in the womb) have been present in my home when I cared for these children, or have accompanied me to the children’s own homes as I care for these children. I do not wish to suggest that I have left my own child in the care of others in order to perform paid child-care. When I have shared on blogs previously, this is the first accusation that came my way – “you hypocrite! You are a working mom, so how dare you judge us!” No, this is not the case. My son and my daughter have been there. Sometimes they have been victimized by the overly-aggressive children. I have done it because my husband has asked me to work part-time, and so I do in obedience to him. I have done it to foster babies whose mothers were addicted to crack cocaine and couldn’t care for them. I have done it because I know what my calling is: I am a mother. If God gives me additional children to care for that are not my blood, they are still His, just as my children are His, and I do it for Him. Believe me, it’s not for the money! Most people pay more for their lunches weekly than for their childcare!

                                                               — Comments —

Alissa writes:

… the mother left the children for twelve hours per day not to earn money, but to evangelize in Christian “ministry.” 

One of the saddest and most heart-breaking things is how heresies and blasphemies have entered the Christian Church. An example of this phenomenon is the “name it, claim it” and “health, wealth, prosperity gospel”. It’s nothing short of leaven.

Hurricane Betsy writes: 

A female reader says, ” I have done it because my husband has asked me to work part-time, and so I do in obedience to him.” 

This is pathetic, scary garbage. A woman, just because she is Christian and married, is not owned by anyone and as such does not need to “obey” her husband. If her husband thinks that a second income is needed, he should suggest to his wife that she take suitable part-time work, and she in turn should do so not out of servile obedience, but because the husband made a good suggestion necessary for the comfort of the family and she respects his wisdom in this matter. 

So out with the “obey” business, because husbands going through some mental crisis can start making some pretty ridiculous, not to mention harmful, demands on their wives and hold them to it based on a marriage vow. Yes, with a vow made in church it’s all or nothing. You can’t start putting conditions on a plain and simple vow. Any conditions have to be listed right there in church during the ceremony.

Laura writes:

I agree, a wife is not an automaton. But, out of love and trust, she should obey her husband’s wishes unless they are clearly unreasonable. ‘The “obey” business’ is important, but the obedience of a wife is not the same type of obedience that a child renders to an adult or an employee renders to an employer.  In this case, I assume the reader also thought this was the best course of action for now.

The female reader responds:

In respectful response to Hurricane Betsy: 

I believe we lost a lot when we removed “obey” from marriage vows for the wife toward her husband. Hurricane Betsy will need to do her own exegesis of pertinent scriptures for herself, but in my studies, I firmly believe that a wife is commanded to obey her own husband. I do also believe that feminism infiltrating modern Churches has created the egalitarian thought that “both spouses ought submit to one another”, without any God-ordained heirarchy, when in fact, such heirarchy does exist. The word for “submit” commanded unto wives in Ephesians does mean to place under voluntarily, as in military order and rank. The husband “outranks” his wife. This is a tremendous weight for him to carry, I’m sure. The buck stops with him: spiritually, financially, physically, everywhere and in every area. I DON’T want that responsibility. 

Of course, God never intended for his daughters to trust and obey their husbands with the wrong heart, just as I believe He doesn’t intend for any of His children to trust Him out of “servile obedience” either. It’s all about the heart motive with God: my intent in using the word “obey” was not to diminish the value of wives, but to illustrate that this employment situation was not my “choice”; it was my husband’s, and because he suggested it, I applied for it. The first time, I was not accepted for the job (we took this as God’s timing); the second time, I was hired. We took this as God’s blessing. 

Also, Hurricane Betsy writes: 

“So out with the “obey” business, because husbands going through some mental crisis can start making some pretty ridiculous, not to mention harmful, demands on their wives and hold them to it based on a marriage vow.” 

This thing that my husband asked that I do – work part-time caring for other’s children – is, in my opinion, neither ridiculous or harmful. It may not be ideal, and I certainly would not have volunteered for it. I don’t want to be sainted because I have “obeyed” my husband in this area, because trust me, I am still getting the nasty feminism worked out of me and I can be quite a firecracker for him to handle! However, I can choose to submit to my husband and “obey” him, or I can choose to revolt and rebel and cause chaos for our entire house. I believe this not only takes me from under God’s wing of protection, because I have rebelled intentionally, but also sends a terrible message to our children: respecting Dad is optional. If you disagree, do what you want. 

I can think of no better reason than to obey.

Laura writes:

That’s a very good explanation of wifely deference, which is not servility. Ideally, it influences the entire family. The wife vows to obey someone she loves and trusts. And the husband makes his requests (not commands) out of love and a sense of responsibility. When a husband asks his wife to do something wrong or unreasonable then it is the wife’s responsibility to convince him that the request is wrong and unreasonable. A husband should not send his wife to work unless it is absolutely necessary.

Drina E. writes:

Regarding the wife’s vow of obedience to her husband: I don’t know whether “A Female Reader” is Catholic or part of a denomination, but it may be of interest to her and your other readers that the vow of obedience, to my understanding, was never part of the Catholic marriage rite. Apparently, it was added by Henry VIII. I have nothing against the vow, for sure, and certainly believe that submission to one’s husband is part of the vocation of any woman who marries. However, we Catholics never “removed” the vow; it was never explicitly there in the first place. For what it’s worth :-)

Laura writes:

Interesting. I did not know that.

Please follow and like us: